freeman2 wrote:DF, regarding my statement that in a few minutes over a hundred rounds were shot: see this article claiming that the Bushmaster he used could shoot 6 bullets a second.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1220914

So I don't think my statement was hyperbole. I understand the difference between a full automatic and a semi-automatic and that a 9mm is a semi-automatic. You do understand that a few minutes is not one minute, right?

Have you ever fired an auto or semi-auto? Have you ever fired a semi-automatic at 6 rounds per second?

I think you'd find the accuracy is somewhat less than what you experienced in Call of Duty 4.

The fact that a weapon can fire 6 rounds per second does not mean that the shooter is able to pull the trigger at that rate, nor does it mean that (because of recoil and, for right-handed shooters, the fact that we tend to pull high and right) those extra rounds will go where intended.

Effective fire is all that matters. I don't care if it can shoot 1200 rounds per second. You can't carry the rounds, the barrel will melt, and the rounds will not be accurate.

I can think I can voice my opinion as to which rights are more important--it is still a free country, right?

So far. Then again, your man hasn't left office, so there's still time for that to change.

Here is the op-ed from the New York Post (Rupert Murdoch owns the newspaper)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-york ... -obsolete/

I don't get your comment on muskets and computers, telephones, etc. It doesn't seem like you got my point.

Oh, but I do. Trying to look at muskets as the state of the art (they weren't) and the limit of what the Constitution's writers had in mind is as smart as saying "freedom of speech" is limited to talking and writing. After all, the telephone, Internet, etc. did not exist when the Constitution was written--and neither did semi-automatics. You are trying to bend one part of the Bill of Rights and ignore the rest of it.

And, actually, that was not the link to the op-ed. It was the link to mediaite's summary of the op-ed. That tells me it is likely you didn't read the entire thing--you found the summary and went with it.

This is not a "conservative" view of the Constitution: "Has technology rendered the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete?"

A "conservative," if he/she believed in changing the Constitution, would call for amending it, not ignoring it. Legislation is not (necessarily) an amendment.

Yeah they had a an idea as to why they passed the Second Amendment--several states were worried about the power of the federal government and wanted to be make sure they had armed militias to defend against it. Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Really how is that not clear--the purpose of arming citizens was to make sure there was a well-regulated militia.

Your language conveys your ideology. Who "arm[ed]" the citizens?

No one. They owned their own weapons. There was no armory from which the government armed citizens.

Plus, you nicely ignore the part of the Amendment that doesn't suit you: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Everything you've proposed is a curtailment or ending of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." How is that not "infringement?"

That's my whole point. I don't dispute that something could be done. I believe there is a process spelled out to do it--but, you don't like that, so you want the Federal government to violate the Constitution.

That is dangerous.

Look, I'll defer to your expertise on guns when that expertise is relevant, DF. But from what I have heard there were over a 100 shots in a very short period (perhaps several minutes would have been more accurate) The main relevant point is that a shooter can shoot a lot of bullets with a 30 round clip with a Bushmaster or other assault weapo (even if it took 45 seconds to a minute to empty the clip that is a lot of people who can be shot)and kill a lot of people before they need to reload. A 10 round round clip produces a lot less carnage before a crowd can do something and additionally probably will reduce that feeling of invincible power that encourages these psychos to do this in the first place
We can leave the overall theoretical discussion of the Second Amendment to another time;I am quite confident we can ban assault weapons and reduce clips within the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment
And by the way if you think that it would be unconstitutional to ban assault weapons, how can automatic weapons be banned?

fate

Effective fire is all that matters

It was pretty effective at Sandy Hook Elementary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29

Connecticut has banned the Bushmaster.

freeman2 wrote:Look, I'll defer to your expertise on guns when that expertise is relevant, DF. But from what I have heard there were over a 100 shots in a very short period (perhaps several minutes would have been more accurate) The main relevant point is that a shooter can shoot a lot of bullets with a 30 round clip with a Bushmaster or other assault weapo (even if it took 45 seconds to a minute to empty the clip that is a lot of people who can be shot)and kill a lot of people before they need to reload. A 10 round round clip produces a lot less carnage before a crowd can do something and additionally probably will reduce that feeling of invincible power that encourages these psychos to do this in the first place

This is incorrect on a number of points. If he shot more than 100 rounds, it was in a period of about 8-9 minutes, which is not that amazing. Let's put it this way: when I had to qualify with my weapon in my previous occupation, we fired 6 rounds in 60 seconds, then 12 in 40 and 12 in 30. That was both with revolvers and semis. How was it possible with the revolvers? Little things called "speed loaders."

In other words, for someone with training, there are few barriers you can imagine or erect that will stop that person from firing off a lot of rounds in a relatively short period of time.

Do you know how long it takes to change magazines--if you know what you're doing?

Furthermore, will "banning" magazines over 10 rounds cause them to evaporate? The only people who will abide by that are those who have no interest in going on a shooting spree.

We can leave the overall theoretical discussion of the Second Amendment to another time;I am quite confident we can ban assault weapons and reduce clips within the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment

And, I am quite confident it will do nothing about situations like Newtown. Just as with the previous assault weapon ban, manufacturers will change names, tweak features, and voila! We'll still have assault weapons for sale. And, clip size is like soda size--it will not have the impact you imagine it will.

And by the way if you think that it would be unconstitutional to ban assault weapons, how can automatic weapons be banned?

Um, what?

The United States Supreme Court, in deciding the case of Haynes v. United States in favor of the defendant, effectively gutted the National Firearms Act of 1934. As one could possess an NFA firearm and choose not to register it, and not face prosecution due to Fifth Amendment protections, the Act was unenforceable. To deal with this, Congress rewrote the Act to make registration of existing firearms impossible except by the government (previously, an existing firearm could be registered by any citizen). In addition to fixing the defect identified in Haynes, the revision tightened definitions of the firearms regulated by the Act, as well as incorporating a new category of firearm, the Destructive Device, which was first regulated in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. This revision is known as the National Firearms Act of 1968 to differentiate it from the NFA of 1934, which is a different (and now void) law.

I think the automatic weapon ban is questionable. However, as you get closer and closer to "normal" weapons, I think the Court will grant less and less slack to the government. You still can own an automatic weapon. You just have to have a Federal permit.

The tax for privately manufacturing any NFA firearm (other than machineguns, which are generally illegal to manufacture) is $200. Transferring requires a $200 tax for all NFA firearms except AOW's, for which the transfer tax is $5 (although the manufacturing tax remains $200).

Dealers who pay a special yearly occupational tax are exempt from these taxes for transfers to or from other special occupational taxpayers (SOT's). Only a Class 2 manufacturer can “make and register” a machine gun—and that gun becomes a Post May-19th, 1986 Gun—salable only to police, State, local, Federal-Government, and the military. Low volume Class 2 manufacturers (those with sales under $500,000.00) pay the $500.00 per year SOT tax, while high sales volume Class 2’s pay the full $1,000.00 SOT “ticket” price.

Transferable machine guns made or registered before May-19th 1986 are worth far more than their original, pre-1986 value. And items like registered “auto-sears,” “lightning-links,” trigger-packs, trunnions, and other “combination of parts” registered as machineguns before the aforementioned date are often worth nearly as much as a full registered machine gun. For instance, as of September 2008, a transferable M16 rifle costs approximately $11,000 to $18,000, while a transferable "lightning-link" for the AR-15 can sell for $8,000 to $10,000. New manufacture M-16s sell to law enforcement and the military for around $600 to $1000.

bbauska wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29

Connecticut has banned the Bushmaster.

Didn't you link to the relevant Connecticut law already? If you read it properly, you'll see it was not a full ban. The weapons were legally held by Mrs Lanza, so clearly they can't have banned them.

I know this is inconvenient for you, but please don't repeat falsehoods.

rickyp wrote:fate

Effective fire is all that matters

It was pretty effective at Sandy Hook Elementary.

I was going to let that pass, but it's a disgusting comment. Period.

I'm making technical comments and you're being a jerk.

Well, sorry DF, but it's quite clear that if you want to kill a large number of people, you could try taking aim with single shots (which is what I believe the DC snipers did with their Bushmaster), or you could put a large clip into a semi-automatic and spray. The latter is probably more effective in a short space of time, simply because it reduces the time anyone has to react.

Frankly, getting overly technical about the act of killing isn't necessarily all that cool either.

danivon wrote:Well, sorry DF, but it's quite clear that if you want to kill a large number of people, you could try taking aim with single shots (which is what I believe the DC snipers did with their Bushmaster), or you could put a large clip into a semi-automatic and spray. The latter is probably more effective in a short space of time, simply because it reduces the time anyone has to react.

Frankly, getting overly technical about the act of killing isn't necessarily all that cool either.

I'm not getting overly-technical. It's just true: 6 rps is physically possible for the gun, but improbable for the human trying to do it, and virtually impossible to be accurate with. So, it's a skewed statistic.

Furthermore, the idea that limiting magazine size will somehow limit this type of crime is a farce.

There are things that will work:

1. Outlawing all guns and sending government troops with dogs to sniff out and find every single gun.

2. Warehousing every person given to quirky personalities and anti-social tendencies, particularly if they have been under the care of professional mental health providers.

3. Seal off all borders; search every in-bound container for weapons.

However, the provisions in Feinstein's bill are rubbish. They would not have prevented the shooting nor will they stop the next one.

So, it's all or nothing then?

Sheesh.

danivon wrote:So, it's all or nothing then?

Sheesh.

No, there is middle ground. And, if there's ever been a time it's possible, it's now.

Sensible limits should be proposed--changes that would make a difference--and put through the Amendment process.

I know freeman2 likes to believe the Congress and President can just end run the Constitution. However, I'm sure he would not like it in some other cases, so . . .

I'm actually in favor of anything that would make the whole process less State-dependent. How a State has the right to limit this, I have no idea.

I'm not saying it would be easy, btw. I think the NRA would be fighting any change. I think the American culture of distrust of government would be a problem (Federal registration? I can't see that happening).

It's thorny. The Second Amendment makes it so.

The worst solution I've seen was from a well-meaning Australian Diplomacy player. He suggested a world-wide boycott against the US until we banned guns. Not even close.

I can virtually guarantee you that whatever comes out as a proposal in January will be pretty useless. It may be well-intentioned, but either won't be legal or won't do much.

I don't own a gun and I'm in no rush--the law won't change a thing.

fate

I'm making technical comments and you're being a jerk.

Right. 20 school children have been murdered and your going on about effective rates of fire. And I'm the jerk.

According to police reports, coming out, in one room children were hidden in a closet as Lanza came in and confronted the teacher. When Lanza asked where the children were the teacher lied and said that the children were in the gym.
He shot her. Then six of the children made a run for the door. If he had had a single shot gun they might have gotten through the door.
But he had a bushmaster with an effective rate of fire.
Luckily he didn't search the closet where 7 children were hiding.

I don't think you solve large complex problems by looking at any single individual incident . But if you really are crass enough to discuss which guns with what specific rates of fire should or should not be included in a ban ... consider these six children and the difference a semi automatic made to their chances.

rickyp wrote:fate

I'm making technical comments and you're being a jerk.

Right. 20 school children have been murdered and your going on about effective rates of fire. And I'm the jerk.

Wrong. Just wrong.

Okay, let's see. I started this thread out railing against your lack of compassion. Now you've got compassion and I don't?

Wrong.

You are arguing for restrictions on guns. Said restrictions would not, technically, make any difference. What part of that is difficult to grasp?

If I cannot use truth to rebut your speculation, what would you like me to use? Harsh stares?

According to police reports, coming out, in one room children were hidden in a closet as Lanza came in and confronted the teacher. When Lanza asked where the children were the teacher lied and said that the children were in the gym.
He shot her. Then six of the children made a run for the door. If he had had a single shot gun they might have gotten through the door.

I've not read that. Link please?

What gun would you like him to have? There are almost no "single shot gun[s]" sold these days. Maybe bolt-action rifle?

Semi-automatic pistols, like police officers carry? According to this link, a Beretta 92F has a "practical rate of fire" of 40 rpm, or a round every second and a half.

Let's say he had taken the shotgun (he left it in the car). Do you think that would have stopped him? If so, you don't know much about shotguns either.

But he had a bushmaster with an effective rate of fire.
Luckily he didn't search the closet where 7 children were hiding.

Withholding what I want to say, but you are rebutting facts with not-facts.

I don't think you solve large complex problems by looking at any single individual incident . But if you really are crass enough to discuss which guns with what specific rates of fire should or should not be included in a ban ... consider these six children and the difference a semi automatic made to their chances.

Okay, now you've done it.

I'm crass? For doing what? Being specific?

Hey Ricky--read the Assault Gun ban that you love. Guess what? It names specific weapons and features. Why? Because specifics matter when crafting legislation or trying to look at what will prevent a shooting like this.

Why don't you get a clue?

Oh yeah, asked and answered.

Question withdrawn.

rickyp wrote:fAccording to police reports . . .

Strange no police reports have been released.

Now, if you meant to say "a police source as relayed through a newspaper," you should say so and list a link.

Furthermore, you have no idea if it would have saved those kids or not, or if he would have gone to another room. It's all speculation on your part.

I thought I would try to find what the gun crazies thought about rates of fire. Here is an AR-15 forum. Seems like you were a little slow, DF..
.http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/964706 ... ifle_.html

One way we can prevent someone from quickly changing magazines is to not guns that allow for exceptionally quick reloading. http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/12 ... ime-around

An article on how many bullets Maj. Hassan fired using a semi-automatic pistol and discussion of rates of fire.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... nutes.html

A study on how fast inexperienced shooters shoot (This link came from above article). http://www.policeone.com/officer-shooti ... ting-cops/